Glasnost the Game
Dear Vanamonde93
First, maybe I should thank you for encouraging a more thorough discussion before deleting articles that were published for more than a decade.
Second, maybe I should mention that I do not know how wikipedia back-office decisions work.
I happen to be the inventor of Glasnost the Game which was produced in Cyprus (not Greece) in the early 90s in 4,000 copies. I was surprised to see that after more than 10 years, the page was deleted. But more surprised I was to read the arguments upon which the decision was grounded. For example, one said that only 100 copies were produced, when the Game's page says explicitly that ONLY 100 ORIGINALS/PROTOTYPES were still available. Another said that newspapers cannot be verified, hey are in Greek (one was in English) and that they were probably hoax, or that it was probably self promotion and that the inventor contacted the newspapers and not the other way around!
A different person asked why this article did not appear in the Greek wikipedia. A surprising question given the fact that the inventor happens to be of Greek origin but he lived in Germany when the game was invented and subsequently in the US. It also makes no sense to me; it is like saying that national data must first be published nationally before they would be "eligible" for the US wikipedia!
Someone else also said: "Also since this game originates in Greek-speaking Cypress" This is inaccurate. If this person spend a moment to read the article, it said that the inventors were in Germany and in the US. And there is no country called Cypress! Not to mention that the term Greek-speaking [country] sounds politically loaded as there is only one country called Cyprus and like in any other country in the world, people speak many languages.
I use wikipedia almost everyday because I always believed it was truly based on crowdsourcing and serious verification.
I am not the one who created that page, and I know very little of how wikipedia works. But I would appreciate a little bit more seriousness and respect, along with your advice and/or initiative to restore the page. The fact that the Glasnost the Game page was deleted after another surprising deletion of a page (Yiannis Laouris) that my followers created almost 20 years ago sounds like no coincidence and suspicious. It looks as if someone is trying first to delete the page of me, and subsequently other pages where my name appears. That much for transparency and democratisation in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiannislaouris (talk • contribs)
- @Yiannislaouris: To be quite honest, I'm a little surprised you're reaching out to me, given that as far as I can see I haven't had anything to do with the deletion of either of these pages besides relisting a discussion once. Both relevant discussions ([1], [2]) were not very well attended, but consensus was nonetheless quite clear that the subjects of those articles were not notable. I'm not seeing any evidence that there was a campaign to purge your work from Wikipedia; all articles need to meet our basic standard of notability. You may, if you wish, create a draft of the article with the relevant sources, and submit it to the articles for creation process, but I would not recommend doing so, because we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves, or about topics where they have a strong conflict of interest. The fact that your "followers" created the page for Glasnost The Game did not help it's case. Please read through the links I've placed here, which explain in more detail the policies and guidelines I have referred to. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
Hello, I'm Passengerpigeon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to the page Statue of Unity because it appeared to have removed negative or disparaging information that was correctly sourced. Please note that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view and must cover controversies relating to particular topics as well as positive aspects; removal of accurate negative information from an article could be seen as POV pushing. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- The trouble wasn't the sourcing, as you're well aware; but if you think it's helpful to leave admins templated level-1 warnings, by all means, go ahead. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2021
- News and notes: New CEO, new board members, China bans
- In the media: The future of Wikipedia
- Op-Ed: I've been desysopped
- Disinformation report: Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
- Discussion report: Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
- Recent research: Wikipedia images for machine learning; Experiment justifies Wikipedia's high search rankings
- Community view: Is writing Wikipedia like making a quilt?
- Traffic report: Kanye, Emma Raducanu and 9/11
- News from Diff: Welcome to the first grantees of the Knowledge Equity Fund
- WikiProject report: The Random and the Beautiful
Deletion process help?
Hello, there are a few articles that I feel do not comply with W:NCORP . Some were clearly written by someone associated with the company for publicity reasons. However I am unsure about how to start the discussion process to have them considered for deletion.. These for instance:
The_PuLi_Hotel_and_Spa
The_Garden_Hotel,_Guangzhou
Spence_Diamonds
Excel_Communications
Suggestions? Thank you.
Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gentleman wiki: Hi. There's a guide to doing the process manually at WP:AFDHOWTO, and a much simpler process that may be used after enabling Twinkle in your preferences (see inset at the same link). If I were less busy at the moment I would try to evaluate the pages myself, but I don't have the time. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter
![]() Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021. Current and upcoming events
September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! Drive and Blitz reports
June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here. August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Other news
June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive). Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
20-minute article assessment volunteers
Hi Vanamonde93 -- I'm just checking in with volunteers for the WiG Good Article Editathon (starting tomorrow!). Are you still set to help out with the 20-minute article assessments? You can watchlist the requests page here. Basic plan: as requests come in, volunteers will mark the request as "in progress," leave their comments on the talk page of the article, then mark the request as "done". We'll be aiming to identify any major issues in articles and suggest priorities for the editor to work on. If you have any questions/concerns, just let me know. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Alanna; yes, still happy to! Thanks for the reminder though, I'll watchlist that page, and do what I can with reviews. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Fab! Thank you. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).
- Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
- Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.
- DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features.
- A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
- Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
- The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
- Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
- The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Greetings Vanamonde93. Regarding the Fireal article which you recently deleted per AFD, will you please userfy it for me at User:John Cline/Fireal. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- @John Cline:, done. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because it is my desire and goal to collaborate and improve this article until it is ready to return to the article main space, I have the following, perhaps unorthodox, additional request: Will you also, please, userfy Talk:FIREAL to User talk:John Cline/Fireal so as to keep the entire article's history, both article and talk, intact for that expectant future move. Than you.--John Cline (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @John Cline: I don't think that's necessary; if and when the page is moved back to mainspace, the talk page can simply be restored where it is. I don't imagine you need the talk page for drafting? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I understand. The reason I asked is because I did invite [3] and will invite others to collaborate on improving this draft and the talk page would be consistent with that effort. Because many of these invited users are new, I anticipate that talking will be a useful and necessary aspect of further draft development. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @John Cline: Sorry for the late response. An unorthodox request, but okay. Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I understand. The reason I asked is because I did invite [3] and will invite others to collaborate on improving this draft and the talk page would be consistent with that effort. Because many of these invited users are new, I anticipate that talking will be a useful and necessary aspect of further draft development. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @John Cline: I don't think that's necessary; if and when the page is moved back to mainspace, the talk page can simply be restored where it is. I don't imagine you need the talk page for drafting? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Because it is my desire and goal to collaborate and improve this article until it is ready to return to the article main space, I have the following, perhaps unorthodox, additional request: Will you also, please, userfy Talk:FIREAL to User talk:John Cline/Fireal so as to keep the entire article's history, both article and talk, intact for that expectant future move. Than you.--John Cline (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
New message from TrangaBellam
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Khafi Khan § Quotations. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Breast tax
You achieved conclusion with discussion to remove Breast Tax ? .2402:3A80:500:C03B:0:70:500C:5301 (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't believe the discussions were conclusive in either direction. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
- Corrosive RfA atmosphere
- The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
- Level of scrutiny
- Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
- Standards needed to pass keep rising
- It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
- Too few candidates
- There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
- "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
- Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere. - Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas. - RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Marie Wilcox
On 13 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marie Wilcox, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Userfication of The Dark Side (Fireal album)
Can I please request that the page The Dark Side (Fireal album), deleted on October 2nd, be userfied and moved over so I can help improve it? Thanks! Dragonsnowballcat (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Dragonsnowballcat: I only deleted a redirect, as the result of a deletion discussion for the band. The article for the band has been userfied; see above conversation with John Cline; maybe you can collaborate? The history of that title also doesn't contain any content beyond the label, date, and track listing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Éric Zemmour on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)